Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
This thread was on Training- whether to attend, or not? My point has been, who would want to get trained by this group? Their teachings and practices are clearly contradictory. I mentioned the role of women as an example, not the only one by any means, but one of the more curious ones. Yet no one says a word. Why? Culture. And yes, this was strongly conditioned by the culture of origin. China was not "virgin soil" but had 5,000 years of social conditioning in their society.
I have named names - the women who were touted in the official organs of the group as lionesses of the recovery in its first few decades. Margaret Barber, a "Miss Groves", Peace Wang, Ruth Lee. . . well over a half dozen names of you include the influences coming in from abroad like Guyon, MacDonough and Penn-Lewis. By contrast, how many lionesses has the group advanced in the past 40 years? Zero.
One must be assidiously trained in non-thought to miss this kind of obvious discrepancy. Well-practiced in the art of mindless oblivion.
|
Aron,
I asked you for a specific response to a specific assertion you made in your first sentence in post #16. Now you’ve generalized your response into ever expanding circles of irrelevant mental meandering. Probably a defense mechanism has kicked in to facilitate your not answering the specific outrageous assertion.
So please, go back to your post #16, read the first sentence, clarify what you were specifically referring to there, and then provide a credible reference to validate that specific assertion.
Thanks
Drake